Comments:I had absolutely no problem with this guy all game, he basically got bored at some point when we were all even at +750 troops and trades were 125 (he had 3 spoils in hand I had 3). If he decideds to stop playing he just deadbeats and let me and red fight each other; other solution is to trim both players evenly eventually. but suiciding on me just because points are unimportant to him, and the other player had to go to a party is very lame and deserves a warning imo.

it's something i deeply hate and that is against the rules although never enforced. So basically deadbeating is bad, but randomly suiciding on someone when you get bored is ok? I see no problem with deadbeating when you had enough.

it's something i deeply hate and that is against the rules although never enforced. So basically deadbeating is bad, but randomly suiciding on someone when you get bored is ok? I see no problem with deadbeating when you had enough.

On the other hand we don't want gestapo enforcement. One time is no time when it comes to a minor offence like this.

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

it's something i deeply hate and that is against the rules although never enforced. So basically deadbeating is bad, but randomly suiciding on someone when you get bored is ok? I see no problem with deadbeating when you had enough.

On the other hand we don't want gestapo enforcement. One time is no time when it comes to a minor offence like this.

What is wrong with the Gestapo?........Suicide is common in 3 player games. Usually done against the lower rank. This guy didnt care about points.

it's something i deeply hate and that is against the rules although never enforced. So basically deadbeating is bad, but randomly suiciding on someone when you get bored is ok? I see no problem with deadbeating when you had enough.

On the other hand we don't want gestapo enforcement. One time is no time when it comes to a minor offence like this.

What is wrong with the Gestapo?........Suicide is common in 3 player games. Usually done against the lower rank. This guy didnt care about points.

the etiquette is deadbeating if no one has offended you systematically attacking and/or you're getting in verbal arguments in the chat with that player. what is wrong with deadbeating if you are done playing??? why f*ck someone up (or every other players) who hasn't done anything to you? we had all 3 played in a manner that didn't piss each other off, and one player had to leave in 10 minutes. How is that a behaviour we are going to let go? how is that not as bad as point dumping/ secret diplomacy/rating abuse/freemium multi??

Last edited by betiko on Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

it's something i deeply hate and that is against the rules although never enforced. So basically deadbeating is bad, but randomly suiciding on someone when you get bored is ok? I see no problem with deadbeating when you had enough.

On the other hand we don't want gestapo enforcement. One time is no time when it comes to a minor offence like this.

What is wrong with the Gestapo?........Suicide is common in 3 player games. Usually done against the lower rank. This guy didnt care about points.

the etiquette is deadbeating if someone has offended you systematically attacking and/or you're getting in verbal arguments in the chat with that player. what is wrong with deadbeating if you are done playing??? why f*ck someone up (or every other players) who hasn't done anything to you? we had all 3 played in a manner that didn't piss each other off, and one player had to leave in 10 minutes. How is that a behaviour we are going to let go? how is that not as bad as point dumping/ secret diplomacy/rating abuse/freemium multi??

There's often a fine line between suiciding and just playing poorly. Even though it's not the case in this particular game, people like to accuse others of suiciding when they just play poorly. If poor strategy was against the rules, the C&A team would have to work 24/7 to keep up with all the reports. And if suiciding were to be made a major offence, all of us would at some point have been deserving of a ban. Suiciding happens, it will continue to happen, and unless the accused has put it into some sort of system similar to mass deadbeating, they're not really deservant of a ban.

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

betiko wrote:the etiquette is deadbeating if someone has offended you systematically attacking and/or you're getting in verbal arguments in the chat with that player. what is wrong with deadbeating if you are done playing??? why f*ck someone up (or every other players) who hasn't done anything to you? we had all 3 played in a manner that didn't piss each other off, and one player had to leave in 10 minutes. How is that a behaviour we are going to let go? how is that not as bad as point dumping/ secret diplomacy/rating abuse/freemium multi??

I think it's interesting how passionate you seem to feel about rules when it involves you personally. All that aside, how do you know he wasn't just hoping for great dice and trying to take you out?

betiko wrote:the etiquette is deadbeating if someone has offended you systematically attacking and/or you're getting in verbal arguments in the chat with that player. what is wrong with deadbeating if you are done playing??? why f*ck someone up (or every other players) who hasn't done anything to you? we had all 3 played in a manner that didn't piss each other off, and one player had to leave in 10 minutes. How is that a behaviour we are going to let go? how is that not as bad as point dumping/ secret diplomacy/rating abuse/freemium multi??

I think it's interesting how passionate you seem to feel about rules when it involves you personally. All that aside, how do you know he wasn't just hoping for great dice and trying to take you out?

2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 22013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

betiko wrote:the etiquette is deadbeating if someone has offended you systematically attacking and/or you're getting in verbal arguments in the chat with that player. what is wrong with deadbeating if you are done playing??? why f*ck someone up (or every other players) who hasn't done anything to you? we had all 3 played in a manner that didn't piss each other off, and one player had to leave in 10 minutes. How is that a behaviour we are going to let go? how is that not as bad as point dumping/ secret diplomacy/rating abuse/freemium multi??

I think it's interesting how passionate you seem to feel about rules when it involves you personally. All that aside, how do you know he wasn't just hoping for great dice and trying to take you out?

2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 22013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

Ok from the chat it looks to me like he could have "made a move" just like he said he was going to and failed. The chat doesn't prove one way or another, just that he made a decision to break a stalemate.

betiko wrote:the etiquette is deadbeating if someone has offended you systematically attacking and/or you're getting in verbal arguments in the chat with that player. what is wrong with deadbeating if you are done playing??? why f*ck someone up (or every other players) who hasn't done anything to you? we had all 3 played in a manner that didn't piss each other off, and one player had to leave in 10 minutes. How is that a behaviour we are going to let go? how is that not as bad as point dumping/ secret diplomacy/rating abuse/freemium multi??

I think it's interesting how passionate you seem to feel about rules when it involves you personally. All that aside, how do you know he wasn't just hoping for great dice and trying to take you out?

2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 22013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

Ok from the chat it looks to me like he could have "made a move" just like he said he was going to and failed. The chat doesn't prove one way or another, just that he made a decision to break a stalemate.

The parts marked in bold tells us that he was aware of what he did was foe worthy, and that he did it (suicided) so that saintslayer could go to his party. Although I suspect it was more because he was tired of the game himself.

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

Gillipig wrote:2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 22013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

The parts marked in bold tells us that he was aware of what he did was foe worthy, and that he did it (suicided) so that saintslayer could go to his party. Although I suspect it was more because he was tired of the game himself.

He may have been tired of the game but there's insufficient evidence that he threw it.If it's a stalemate and you are going to take the chance of taking one other player out, you have to choose one or the other. The person who gets "chosen" is likely to be pissed off and foe you for it. I'm pretty sure breaking a stalemate isn't against the rules. While this method may not be the most practical way of doing so, it's not evidence of deliberately throwing the game. Again, there is the small chance he could have gotten amazing dice and taken out both players.

Gillipig wrote:2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 22013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

The parts marked in bold tells us that he was aware of what he did was foe worthy, and that he did it (suicided) so that saintslayer could go to his party. Although I suspect it was more because he was tired of the game himself.

He may have been tired of the game but there's insufficient evidence that he threw it.If it's a stalemate and you are going to take the chance of taking one other player out, you have to choose one or the other. The person who gets "chosen" is likely to be pissed off and foe you for it. I'm pretty sure breaking a stalemate isn't against the rules. While this method may not be the most practical way of doing so, it's not evidence of deliberately throwing the game. Again, there is the small chance he could have gotten amazing dice and taken out both players.

funky, go somewhere else you're a troll. just because i did the report you are going to disagree with me. If you are going to comment, at least read the comment on my report or just do the fucking math. troops were 750+ even for all 3 players and trades 125. not even a cook would think he has a chance.

regarding your other idiotic comment, allow me to have my own opinion and to be against "game throwing" and have no problem with people sitting turns in case of absence.

I'd like some form of explanation other than this.... why would you do such things man? it still doesn't answers my question; if you decide it's over for you, what type of mentality is that? the game can go on without you no need to suicide on someone that's done nothing to you just for fun!

Gillipig wrote:2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 22013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

The parts marked in bold tells us that he was aware of what he did was foe worthy, and that he did it (suicided) so that saintslayer could go to his party. Although I suspect it was more because he was tired of the game himself.

He may have been tired of the game but there's insufficient evidence that he threw it.If it's a stalemate and you are going to take the chance of taking one other player out, you have to choose one or the other. The person who gets "chosen" is likely to be pissed off and foe you for it. I'm pretty sure breaking a stalemate isn't against the rules. While this method may not be the most practical way of doing so, it's not evidence of deliberately throwing the game. Again, there is the small chance he could have gotten amazing dice and taken out both players.

funky, go somewhere else you're a troll. just because i did the report you are going to disagree with me. If you are going to comment, at least read the comment on my report or just do the fucking math. troops were 750+ even for all 3 players and trades 125. not even a cook would think he has a chance.

regarding your other idiotic comment, allow me to have my own opinion and to be against "game throwing" and have no problem with people sitting turns in case of absence.

Chill out betiko.I've seen some players do some pretty irrational things when they are just fed up with a stalemate. Aside from ranting, do you have any actual new evidence that shows that he threw the game because as it stands it doesn't look like there is any? With 750 troop stacks there can be a lot of variation in results.

Gillipig wrote:2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 22013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

The parts marked in bold tells us that he was aware of what he did was foe worthy, and that he did it (suicided) so that saintslayer could go to his party. Although I suspect it was more because he was tired of the game himself.

He may have been tired of the game but there's insufficient evidence that he threw it.If it's a stalemate and you are going to take the chance of taking one other player out, you have to choose one or the other. The person who gets "chosen" is likely to be pissed off and foe you for it. I'm pretty sure breaking a stalemate isn't against the rules. While this method may not be the most practical way of doing so, it's not evidence of deliberately throwing the game. Again, there is the small chance he could have gotten amazing dice and taken out both players.

funky, go somewhere else you're a troll. just because i did the report you are going to disagree with me. If you are going to comment, at least read the comment on my report or just do the fucking math. troops were 750+ even for all 3 players and trades 125. not even a cook would think he has a chance.

regarding your other idiotic comment, allow me to have my own opinion and to be against "game throwing" and have no problem with people sitting turns in case of absence.

Chill out betiko.I've seen some players do some pretty irrational things when they are just fed up with a stalemate. Aside from ranting, do you have any actual new evidence that shows that he threw the game because as it stands it doesn't look like there is any? With 750 troop stacks there can be a lot of variation in results.

appart from O,4% odds and the guy admitting he did it because he doesn't care about points and the third player had to go as an excuse to what he did, damn it, you're a genius. It wasn t game throwing at all and there is no evidence! troll.

So no one is allowed to take a "risk" when taking their turn, no matter how slim? Yes, he admitted to not caring about points and he admitted to wanting to speed up the game. This still doesn't prove he deliberately threw the game. You can't demand that someone play the game exactly the same way you would. If it weren't a stalemate situation you might have a stronger case but it was so you don't.

Funkyterrance wrote:So no one is allowed to take a "risk" when taking their turn, no matter how slim? Yes, he admitted to not caring about points and he admitted to wanting to speed up the game. This still doesn't prove he deliberately threw the game. You can't demand that someone play the game exactly the same way you would. If it weren't a stalemate situation you might have a stronger case but it was so you don't.

humm let me laugh at your face. In those cases you slim down both players so that one is tempted to go for a kill that matches somehow the value of the trade; let's say the value of the trades is twice lower the troop count; maybe you have a slim chance there; but x7 times more troops than the value of the trades of both opponents is suicide, and by no way did he think he could win that game by doing so, he isn't a clueless player. Stop insulting everybody's intellignece saying that 0,036% odds is not throwing a game.

Funkyterrance wrote:So no one is allowed to take a "risk" when taking their turn, no matter how slim? Yes, he admitted to not caring about points and he admitted to wanting to speed up the game. This still doesn't prove he deliberately threw the game. You can't demand that someone play the game exactly the same way you would. If it weren't a stalemate situation you might have a stronger case but it was so you don't.

humm let me laugh at your face. In those cases you slim down both players so that one is tempted to go for a kill that matches somehow the value of the trade; let's say the value of the trades is twice lower the troop count; maybe you have a slim chance there; but x7 times more troops than the value of the trades of both opponents is suicide, and by no way did he think he could win that game by doing so, he isn't a clueless player. Stop insulting everybody's intellignece saying that 0,036% odds is not throwing a game.

Again, that's your strategy. You can't just impose your style of play on every other player on the site or even assume they care as much as you do. The bottom line is you can't prove one way or the other.

Funkyterrance wrote:So no one is allowed to take a "risk" when taking their turn, no matter how slim? Yes, he admitted to not caring about points and he admitted to wanting to speed up the game. This still doesn't prove he deliberately threw the game. You can't demand that someone play the game exactly the same way you would. If it weren't a stalemate situation you might have a stronger case but it was so you don't.

humm let me laugh at your face. In those cases you slim down both players so that one is tempted to go for a kill that matches somehow the value of the trade; let's say the value of the trades is twice lower the troop count; maybe you have a slim chance there; but x7 times more troops than the value of the trades of both opponents is suicide, and by no way did he think he could win that game by doing so, he isn't a clueless player. Stop insulting everybody's intellignece saying that 0,036% odds is not throwing a game.

Again, that's your strategy. You can't just impose your style of play on every other player on the site or even assume they care as much as you do. The bottom line is you can't prove one way or the other.

Can both of you stop posting now? You're arguing over nothing, and only spam the thread right now. Just let the mod make his verdict.

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

Funkyterrance wrote:So no one is allowed to take a "risk" when taking their turn, no matter how slim? Yes, he admitted to not caring about points and he admitted to wanting to speed up the game. This still doesn't prove he deliberately threw the game. You can't demand that someone play the game exactly the same way you would. If it weren't a stalemate situation you might have a stronger case but it was so you don't.

humm let me laugh at your face. In those cases you slim down both players so that one is tempted to go for a kill that matches somehow the value of the trade; let's say the value of the trades is twice lower the troop count; maybe you have a slim chance there; but x7 times more troops than the value of the trades of both opponents is suicide, and by no way did he think he could win that game by doing so, he isn't a clueless player. Stop insulting everybody's intellignece saying that 0,036% odds is not throwing a game.

Again, that's your strategy. You can't just impose your style of play on every other player on the site or even assume they care as much as you do. The bottom line is you can't prove one way or the other.

Can both of you stop posting now? You're arguing over nothing, and only spam the thread right now. Just let the mod make his verdict.